Western Oregon University
Digital Commons@WOU
Master's of Arts in Interpreting Studies (MAIS)
Theses Interpreting Studies
Winter 3-9-2015
Interpreter competencies in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics as identified by deaf
professionals
Christopher Grooms
Western Oregon University
Follow this and additional works at:https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/theses
Part of theArts and Humanities Commons,Critical and Cultural Studies Commons,Disability and Equity in Education Commons,Life Sciences Commons,Medicine and Health Sciences Commons,Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons, and theScience and Mathematics Education Commons
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Interpreting Studies at Digital Commons@WOU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's of Arts in Interpreting Studies (MAIS) Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@WOU. For more information, please [email protected], [email protected], [email protected].
Recommended Citation
Grooms, C. (2015).Interpreter competencies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as identified by deaf professionals(master's thesis). Western Oregon University, Monmouth, Oregon. Retrieved fromhttps://digitalcommons.wou.edu/theses/18
Interpreter Competencies in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics as Identified by Deaf Professionals
By
Christopher Grooms
A thesis submitted to Western Oregon University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of:
Master of Arts, Interpreting Studies
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my thesis committee members: Dr. Elisa Maroney (Chair), Western Oregon University, for her encouragement to pursue my own specific interests and whose attention to detail has kept me focused and on my toes; Dr. Adele Schepige, Western Oregon University, whose enthusiasm for this study and perspective outside of the interpreting field helped me to see this study from different angles, and; Dr. Caroline Solomon, Gallaudet University, for the years of mentoring, friendship, and encouragement that have lead me to this study. I would also like to thank my cohort mates in the Western Oregon University Interpreting Studies Program for their shoulders to lean on for support, ability to make a Master’s program fun, and encouragement all along the way that laid the foundation for me to stand on throughout the program. Finally, I owe a huge debt of gratitude to those Deaf professionals who chose to take part in this study. Without their plentiful and robust input this study would not have been possible. Thank you, all!
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... ii
LIST OF TABLES ... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ... vii
ABSTRACT ... viii
INTRODUCTION ...1
Background ...1
Statement of the Problem ...3
Purpose of the Study ...4
Theoretical Bases and Organization ...4
Limitations of the Study ...5
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ...6
Existing Specialization in the Field of Signed Language Interpreting ...6
The Need for Specialization in the Field of Signed Language Interpreting ...9
The Need for Specialization Training in the Field of Signed Language Interpreting ... 11
Interpreter Competencies in Healthcare Settings ... 14
Conclusions ... 15
METHODOLOGY... 17
Literature Review ... 17
Design of the Investigation ... 18
Sample ... 20
Data Analysis Procedures ... 20
FINDINGS... 23
I. Demographics ... 23
Fields and disciplines ... 23
Sectors of employment ... 24
Geographical areas ... 25
II. Interpreting Services ... 26
iv
Situations where interpreters are used... 26
Designated interpreters ... 27
Difficulties of securing interpreters ... 31
Supply of qualified interpreters ... 31
III. Video Relay Services and Video Remote Interpreting Services ... 35
Use of VRS ... 35
Use of Video Remote Interpreting Services ... 36
IV. Interpreter Competencies ... 37
Credentials ... 38
Flexibility in signing ... 40
Knowledge of the discipline ... 41
Prior experience interpreting in the discipline ... 43
Interpreter education and training ... 44
Understanding the jargon of the discipline... 45
Deciphering foreign accents ... 46
Preparation for presentations ... 47
Issues of understanding concepts specific to the discipline ... 49
Advocating for interpreter needs ... 50
Flexibility in working environments ... 50
Other competencies ... 51
DISCUSSION ... 53
I. Demographics ... 53
a. Fields and disciplines ... 53
b. Geographical representation ... 54
II. Interpreting Services ... 55
a. Situations where interpreters are used... 55
b. Designated interpreters ... 56
c. Difficulties of securing interpreters ... 57
d. Supply of qualified interpreters ... 58
III. Video Relay Services and Video Remote Interpreting ... 60
v
b. Use of Video Remote Interpreting Services ... 61
IV. Interpreter Competencies ... 61
a. Credentials ... 61
b. Flexibility in signing ... 62
c. Knowledge of the discipline ... 63
d. Prior experience interpreting in the discipline ... 65
e. Interpreter education and training ... 65
f. Understanding the jargon of the discipline... 66
g. Deciphering foreign accents ... 68
h. Preparation for presentations ... 69
i. Issues of understanding concepts specific to the discipline ... 70
j. Advocating for interpreter needs ... 71
k. Flexibility in working environments ... 71
l. Other competencies ... 72 CONCLUSION ... 74 RECOMMENDATIONS ... 78 REFERENCES ... 80 APPENDIX A ... 84 APPENDIX B ... 86
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Geographical location of respondents……….25 Table 2: Preferred interpreter credentials………..…39 Table 3: Preferred interpreter educational background……….44 Table 4: Reported importance of interpreter training in the specific STEM discipline………….45
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Number of respondents per STEM field………....23
Figure 2: Number of respondents per sector of employment………...….24
Figure 3: Number of interpreting service hours utilized per week………....26
Figure 4: Percentage of respondents indicating the use of designated interpreters by field…….28
Figure 5: Percentage of respondents indicating the use of designated interpreters by employment sector………..29
Figure 6: Percentage of respondents using designated interpreters by field per employment sector………...30
Figure 7: Supply of qualified interpreters reported by respondents………..31
Figure 8: Percentage of respondents reporting not enough interpreters by field………...…32
Figure 9: Percentage reporting not enough interpreters by employment sector………....32
Figure 10: Percentage of respondents reporting not enough interpreters by field per employment sector………..…33
Figure 11: Reported lack of interpreters by region………34
Figure 12: Percentage reporting using VRS to make STEM related calls……….35
Figure 13: Percentage reporting satisfaction with using VRS for STEM related calls……….…36
Figure 14: Reported importance of interpreters’ flexibility in using a range of signing systems……….41
Figure 15: Importance of interpreters being knowledgeable in the discipline………...…42
Figure 16: Importance of prior experience interpreting in the discipline………..43
Figure 17: Importance of interpreters understanding the specific jargon of the discipline…...…46
Figure 18: Importance of interpreters being able to decipher foreign accents………..47
Figure 19: Importance of interpreter preparation work for presentations……….48
viii
ABSTRACT
Interpreter Competencies in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics as Identified by Deaf Professionals
By
Christopher Grooms
Master of Arts, Interpreting Studies Western Oregon University
March 2015
Since the 1990’s there has been an ever increasing number of Deaf people seeking higher education and pursuing a wide variety of professions and careers that enhance their life
experiences. The Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields have seen an influx of Deaf people interested in engaging in education and life-long careers in these fields and their respective disciplines. One of the reasons behind this growing interest by Deaf people is the National Science Foundation’s commitment to expanding the participation of
underrepresented groups in STEM (NSF, 2012). Many Deaf students in higher education and Deaf professionals engaging in STEM careers and professions report a lack of qualified signed language interpreters available to access communication events that are necessary to become successful in these fields and disciplines.
ix In the field of signed language interpreting worldwide there has been no research
conducted on interpreters and the interpreting process in STEM. There abound many anecdotal experiences by Deaf professionals and signed language interpreters alike regarding the
challenges of working and interpreting in STEM. One consequence of not having qualified signed language interpreters in STEM is that the professional development of Deaf students and Deaf professionals who choose to study and build careers in these fields is hampered. In this exploratory study, competencies specific to interpreting in various aspects of the STEM fields and disciplines, as identified by the Deaf consumers who engage interpreting services, will be identified and described.
1
INTRODUCTION Background
Since the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, there has been a steady increase of Deaf people seeking higher education and pursuing professions and careers that enhance their life experiences. One area where there has been an increase in interest by Deaf people is in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields. The National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) reported that in 2010, 237 Deaf people earned doctorate degrees in diverse fields; 40% of the doctorates earned were in the STEM disciplines (NCSES, 2011a). One of the reasons behind this is the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) commitment to expanding the participation of underrepresented groups in STEM (NSF, 2012).
Many interpreters who work between signed and spoken languages may shy away from interpreting in the STEM fields possibly due to the degree of difficulty and lack of familiarity with the subject matter. There is also a lack of consistency in standard sign vocabulary for STEM terms which makes it challenging for interpreters to keep track of what is acceptable for specific clients and what is commonly used in specific settings. There is a movement to consolidate and standardize STEM sign vocabulary led by Deaf professionals in the STEM fields through the Science Signs Lexicon project (Rochester Institute of Technology, n.d.) housed at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID), which is a subsidiary of the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), and the ASL-STEM Forum (University of Washington, n.d.) which is led by the University of Washington in partnership with NTID and Gallaudet University. There are several other resources available; however, there is no coordinated effort to consolidate these
2 resources and standardize signs (Ladner, Lange, & Kushalnagar, 2012). While these resources are useful for both interpreters and Deaf people alike, they are far from being comprehensive and many interpreters are unaware that these projects even exist and can be accessed through the internet.
In addition to the difficulty of the subject matter and lack of standardized STEM sign vocabulary; there are very few opportunities for interpreters to engage in training related to providing services in the STEM disciplines. Those trainings and workshops that do exist tend to be half to full day workshops offered by individuals, both Deaf professionals and signed
language interpreters, who have developed expertise in specific STEM disciplines. While useful to both student and professional interpreters, these trainings and workshops do not offer the in depth education and skill development necessary to prepare one for a career focus on providing interpreting services in the STEM fields. Interpreter preparation programs across the U.S. focus on training interpreters to enter the field of interpreting as generalists. One program offers specialized training/coarse work to prepare interpreters for providing services specific to one setting. St. Catherine University, in Minnesota, offers a concentration in healthcare interpreting. Established in 1983, this concentration offers interpreting students several healthcare electives as part of their course of study (St. Catherine University, n.d.). Additionally, the undergraduate interpreting program at Gallaudet University requires students to complete course work in human biology and anatomy and physiology, however, these courses do not constitute a concentration (Gallaudet University, n.d.). While these courses help prepare interpreters for providing services in healthcare settings, they do not necessarily prepare students to work with Deaf professionals who choose to engage in careers in the medical field that do not involve direct patient care.
3 In the field of signed language interpreting worldwide there has been no research
conducted related to interpreters and the interpreting process in STEM. Anecdotally, however, many Deaf students in higher education and Deaf professionals in STEM experience a lack of qualified signed language interpreters in order to access communication that is necessary to become successful in their respected fields (Cook & Graham, 2012; Graham, Solomon, Marchut, Kushalnagar, & Painter, 2012). Without a clear understanding of what is required for interpreters to provide effective services in the STEM fields, it is impossible to train experienced and student interpreters in the competencies needed. This lack of understanding the competencies required of interpreters in STEM will only further exacerbate the issue of not having enough qualified interpreters to provide services leading to limitations placed on Deaf students wishing to enter the STEM fields and those Deaf professionals who have already started their careers.
Statement of the Problem
Currently, there are no defined and agreed upon competencies that interpreters must possess to provide effective communication access services in the STEM fields. Lack of identified competencies has led to a shortage of qualified interpreters able to provide effective services in the STEM fields, thus causing Deaf professionals to experience limitations that their hearing colleagues do not face. These additional limitations can cause additional stress on the Deaf professional and increase their work load as they seek alternative ways to communicate important job related information amongst their fellow professionals.
4
Purpose of the Study
The general purpose of this study is to identify the skill set, knowledge base, and other attributes that signed language interpreters must possess in order to provide effective services for Deaf professionals in the STEM fields. To do so involves finding the answers to the following questions: What do Deaf professionals in the STEM fields identify as the competencies signed language interpreters must possess in order to provide effective communication access services in those fields, and, are their enough qualified interpreters to provide effective communication access services in the STEM fields? The identified competencies can then be used as a baseline for professional and student interpreters who wish to enhance their skill set and knowledge base in order to provide effective communication access services in the STEM fields. The identified competencies may further be used to argue that STEM interpreting is an area of specialization within the field and should be officially recognized as such by professional organizations and, possibly, the availability of specialty credentials.
Additionally, if the lack of qualified interpreters who can provide services in the STEM fields is documented with empirical evidence, interpreter practitioners and interpreter educators will acknowledge the need for more training specifically oriented toward interpreter education and skill development in the STEM fields.
Theoretical Bases and Organization
Theoretically, if interpreter competencies in the STEM fields are identified, then interpreter practitioners and interpreter educators can begin to address the issue of a lack of qualified interpreters able to provide services in the STEM fields through directed and specific training. The organization of this study is based on the fact that there are currently no agreed
5 upon and identified competencies for interpreters providing services in the STEM fields.
Additionally, through anecdotal evidence, this researcher assumes that there are not enough interpreters qualified to provide services in the STEM fields and seeks to validate that anecdotal evidence by asking Deaf professionals about their experiences with interpreter services in their respective fields. Identifying interpreter competencies necessary to provide communication access services in the STEM fields and documenting a lack of qualified interpreters able to provide those services will set the foundation for further research related to interpreting in the STEM disciplines.
Limitations of the Study
This study may be limited by a smaller than desired sample size. Although several avenues were taken to distribute the online survey and elicit participation by Deaf professionals, the fact that not every Deaf professional in the STEM fields was aware that their input was sought is a reality. The sample size goal was 100; however, only 57 completed surveys were submitted. A further limitation is the fact that the online survey used to collect data was
presented in English only. Deaf professionals in the STEM fields who preferred to participate in the study using American Sign Language (or other signed or written languages) may have chosen not to contribute their input in a non-preferred language.
6
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
The field of signed language interpreting worldwide is limited by the fact that there has been no research conducted on interpreters and the interpreting process in STEM. However, there are a few qualitative and quantitative research articles that focus on specialty areas that interpreters engage in; mainly the legal, healthcare, and video relay service areas. The research that has been done in these specialty areas can drive the development of signed language interpreting research in the STEM fields.
The need for signed language interpreting services has grown tremendously over the past twenty years due to federal legislation that guarantees a Deaf persons right to communication access services. This need has influenced areas of specialization within the field of signed language interpreting. If interpreters are to provide quality services in the STEM fields to the growing number of Deaf consumers entering those fields there has to be some mechanism to gain the necessary training specific to interpreting in STEM. The consequences of not having qualified signed language interpreters in STEM and not providing necessary training will hamper the professional development of Deaf students and professionals who choose to study and build careers in those fields. Although there is little to no research relating to interpreting and
interpreter training in STEM, this literature review will use what little research there is in identified areas of specialization within the field to argue for more research and training in the arena of STEM interpreting.
Existing Specialization in the Field of Signed Language Interpreting
There are several areas of specialization generally recognized by practitioners in the field of signed language interpreting. However, interpreting in legal settings is the only specialty
7 officially recognized by the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) in the U.S. through the provision of credentials above and beyond those of general practitioner. Since 1980 RID has been offering the Specialist Certificate: Legal, commonly known as the SC: L, for practitioners who hold generalist certification and specialize in interpreting in the legal realm. Roberson, Russell, and Shaw (2012) surveyed 1,995 interpreters in Canada and the U.S. regarding their experiences and training for interpreting in legal settings. Of the 1,995 respondents to the 64 question survey, 29.4% held associate degrees, 43% held bachelor degrees and 27.6% held a graduate degree (Roberson, Russell, & Shaw, 2012). Of those surveyed 46% reported working in legal settings with 55.6% of those doing so for 10 years or less (Roberson et al., 2012). The majority of those who indicated they did not work in legal settings cited lack of training as a reason, a concept that will be further explored later in this review. With almost half of the respondents providing services in legal settings, Roberson et al. (2012) speculate that many of those may be under qualified. Deaf people who receive less than par communication access services are subject to dire consequences, especially in the legal realm. Not only should the public be educated on what a “qualified” interpreter in legal settings means, stakeholders must also recognize the need for specific training in this area of specialization (Roberson et al., 2012).
Oldfield (2010) identified Video Relay Service (VRS) interpreting as another area of specialization in the field. VRS is a federally mandated service in the U.S. that allows Deaf people access to telephone interpreting services via live video. Oldfield (2010) interviewed 13 VRS interpreters and VRS managers considered to be experts in the field to tease out specific competencies required for working in VRS that are not required of general practitioners. These experts identified specific competencies that require higher order cognitive processing skills of interpreters, ability to move between subject matters quickly, ability to recognize and use
8 regional variations in American Sign Language (ASL), and specific technology skills to handle large volumes of calls (Oldfield, 2010). From the results of this study the author was able to develop a competency model for interpreters in the specialty of VRS. According to Oldfield (2010), identifying these competencies will have implications for interpreter preparation
programs as the need for qualified VRS interpreters continues to grow at a rapid rate in the U.S. However, it should be noted that due to the low sample rate (13 participants), generalizing the findings of this VRS study may be difficult. Oldfield (2010) recommends future research with a larger sample size to validate the results.
Walker and Shaw (2011) identified six areas of specialization within the field of signed language interpreting by using a mixed method study to survey 120 interpreters from the Southeast region of the U.S. who completed training within the past two years. The interpreters were asked to evaluate their readiness to provide services in (1) legal, (2) medical, (3) mental health, (4) K-12 education, and (5) post-secondary education settings as well as (6) providing services for people who are Deaf-Blind. (Note: this study did not ask participants about their perceived readiness to provide services in the STEM fields.) Through a 93-question survey participants were asked to identify specialty areas that they provided services in at least twice a week. Of those surveyed 52% provided services in post-secondary educational settings, 44% provided services in medical settings, and 41% provided services in K-12 educational settings. Legal and mental health settings, as well as working with Deaf-Blind individuals, were not reported as frequent situations in which the respondents provided services (Walker & Shaw, 2011). The reasons given for not providing services in these areas will be discussed in a later section of this review.
9 To date there has been no research conducted on interpreting in the STEM fields as a specialty. Therefore, the first step to understanding the need for interpreter specialization and specialized training for interpreting in the STEM fields is to consider the perspectives of Deaf consumers related to interpreting services in the STEM fields.
The Need for Specialization in the Field of Signed Language Interpreting
As Deaf people around the world who use a signed language gain greater access to social and professional services, the need for signed language interpreters who can provide specialized services increases. Looking to the research that has been conducted from the Deaf consumer’s perspective sheds light on the need for specialization in the field of interpreting. Middleton et al. (2010) conducted a cross-sectional study to evaluate the needs of Deaf and hard of hearing patients seeking healthcare within the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom. They surveyed 999 Deaf and hard of hearing people through questionnaires disseminated in several different publications targeting this specific group of consumers. Of the respondents who answered the questionnaire, 11% indicated their preferred mode of communication as a signed language (in this case, British Sign Language) with 15% of respondents preferring to use a qualified interpreter in healthcare settings (Middleton et al., 2010). Respondents reported that access to these interpreters was of utmost importance to receive the information they needed regarding their own healthcare. Middleton et al. (2010) recommended that infrastructure in the NHS should be modified to prove the use of an accredited interpreter before consent can be considered informed.
Here in the U.S., Steinberg, Barnett, Meador, Wiggins and Zazove (2006) found similar results in a qualitative study that analyzed data collected from 91 Deaf participants in four focus
10 groups conducted in three major U.S. cities. They found that Deaf people continue to report a lack of accessibility to healthcare despite the passage of the ADA in 1990 and there is a general fear of the consequences of miscommunication with healthcare providers (Steinberg et al., 2006). When asked about other means of communication (writing, speech reading, and telephone) participants in the focus groups felt these means were inadequate and the preference was for a medically experienced and certified interpreter (Steinberg et al., 2006). Steinberg et al. (2006) conclude their study with the recommendation that there should be advanced education offered in healthcare interpreting for signed language interpreters and the effects of this education on health outcomes of Deaf people should be studied.
While interpreting in medical settings is considered one aspect of STEM interpreting, we must look to Deaf professionals who have chosen a STEM field as a career path and Deaf
students who have chosen STEM majors to gain a better understanding of the need for interpreter specialization in STEM. The National Science Foundation hosted a two day event entitled
“Workshop for Emerging Deaf and Hard of Hearing Scientists” May 17-18, 2012 on the campus of Gallaudet University to explore how to increase participation by Deaf and hard of hearing people in the STEM fields (Note: medical professionals were welcome to attend this event, but may not have done so due to having their own conferences hosted by the Association of Medical Professionals with Hearing Loss). The organizing committee used this opportunity to survey the 97 participants who ranged from high school and college students to university professors and government employees. Subsequently, the team who coordinated the event used a mixed
methods approach to analyze the data collected which was published in a whitepaper. This report states that many of the challenges faced by Deaf students and professionals are based on access to communication in the various fields and lack of qualified and experienced interpreters to
11 provide communication access services (Solomon, Ed., 2012). Students reported difficulty in following lectures when interpreters did not have scientific training and struggled with the material being presented through interpreters (Graham, et al., 2012). Deaf professionals who work in the STEM fields reported the same frustration with interpreting services and the inability to participate in workplace events, and sometimes the lab work itself, because of lack of
qualified interpreters to provide services (Cooke & Graham, 2012). These findings imply that if Deaf professionals and Deaf students in STEM disciplines are to gain access to communication to further their career, specific training needs to be provided to interpreters to ensure that they are able to provide effective communication in both the classroom and the workplace.
Understanding the needs of Deaf consumers in STEM arenas is the first step in validating the need for specialization of signed language interpreters in those settings.
The Need for Specialization Training in the Field of Signed Language Interpreting
Interpreter preparation programs, whether at the two year associate level or the four year bachelor level, train students to become general practitioners. Once a student graduates from a program they should have the knowledge and skills necessary to provide generalist services. However, what about those who wish to provide services in specialized settings? The research shows that there is a need for further training outside of academic programs for interpreters who wish to specialize in certain disciplines (Oldfield, 2010; Roberson et al., 2012; Steinberg et al., 2006; Walker & Shaw, 2011).
In Roberson et al. (2012), the majority of those interpreters who indicated they did not work in legal settings cited lack of training as a reason. Of the 1,995 interpreters who responded to the survey, 72% stated they were interested in taking university classes in legal interpreting for
12 credit (Roberson et al., 2012). Clearly, there is a need for specialized training in legal
interpreting due to the nature of and potential consequences of providing services in this setting. Roberson et al. (2012), state that stakeholders must recognize the need for training in the legal specialty and take steps to establish a core curriculum in order to train interpreters appropriately. Until that can be done the researchers recommend establishing a group of mentors for legal interpreting nationwide and developing a consistent model of training for interpreters who wish to specialize in the legal realm (Roberson et al., 2012). The Distance Opportunities for
Interpreter Training, housed at the University of Northern Colorado, is currently the only interpreter preparation program in the U.S. that offers specialized course work to enhance the knowledge base and skill set of interpreters who wish to specialize in legal interpreting (University of Northern Colorado, Distance Opportunities for Interpreter Training, n.d.).
In the study on VRS interpreting as a specialty, Oldfield (2010) identified certain competencies that are required of interpreters who choose to provide services in that venue. Oldfield (2010) states, “A situational analysis shows that sign language interpreter education and development are not producing the number of practitioners needed to keep up with the current demands, much less the predicted demands for the near future” (p. 42). Clearly, this is a call for training interpreters in the specialty of VRS. One recommendation from this article was that the competency model developed as a result of this study be used by interpreter preparation
programs to train interpreters in the specialization of VRS (Oldfield, 2010). This
recommendation becomes pertinent to the field of signed language interpreting as the need for qualified interpreters in VRS continues to grow.
Walker and Shaw (2011), who identified six areas of specialization for interpreters, note that those interpreters who chose not to provide services in legal and mental health settings and
13 for persons who are Deaf-Blind cited lack of training. The 56% of respondents who reported not accepting assignments in medical settings also cited lack of training in ASL vocabulary and general medical procedures and they went on to suggest that interpreters receive intensive training in this area before accepting assignments (Walker and Shaw, 2011). In contrast, the respondents indicated that interpreting in educational settings were the most commonly accepted assignments by recent graduates who claimed the training they received was adequate enough that they felt comfortable in those settings (Walker and Shaw, 2011). Walker and Shaw (2011) recommend, based on their findings, that interpreter preparation programs develop curriculum and implement specialized training in the six specialty areas identified. Currently, in the U.S., St. Catherine University’s signed language interpreter preparation program offers a concentration in healthcare interpreting. Their program provides interpreting students with several healthcare electives as part of their course of study in order to enhance their knowledge base related to healthcare settings (St. Catherine University, n.d.). Additionally, the undergraduate interpreter preparation program housed at Gallaudet University requires students to take a class in human biology as well as anatomy and physiology (Gallaudet University, n.d.).
Alternatively, what about specialized training for interpreters who would like to provide services in STEM disciplines? There has been no research to date regarding STEM interpreting as a specialty in the field. As such, we must turn to the experiences of Deaf consumers who require interpreting services in STEM. Those experiences clearly show there is a lack of
qualified and trained interpreters to provide services (Solomon, Ed., 2012). The lack of qualified and trained interpreters ultimately stems from a lack of formal and standardized training. The report from the “Workshop on Emerging Deaf and Hard of Hearing Scientists” (Solomon, Ed., 2012) makes several recommendations regarding the training of interpreters in STEM: (1) further
14 research be conducted on how interpreters who are qualified to provide services in the STEM fields gained the knowledge and skills necessary to do so; (2) that interpreter training programs must acknowledge the lack of training for interpreters in STEM fields; and (3) that resources for interpreters who are interested in providing services in the STEM fields be developed. This report may be considered a call for interpreter training in the specialty of STEM and becomes all the more powerful as it comes from the Deaf consumers of interpreting services themselves.
Interpreter Competencies in Healthcare Settings
Swabey and Dutton (2014) published “Interpreting in Healthcare Settings: Annotated Bibliography” in which they provide resources for interpreters in healthcare settings and interpreter educators related to 13 domains and corresponding competencies that are necessary for signed language interpreters providing services in healthcare settings to possess. The 13 domains and corresponding competencies were identified through a joint effort of the CATIE Center (Collaborative for the Advancement of Teaching Interpreting Excellence), housed at St. Catherine University, and their parent organization, the National Consortium for Interpreter Education Centers (NCIEC). Both of these entities are provided funding through the U.S.
Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration. Their purpose, along with five other organizations under the NCIEC is, “to significantly increase the number of qualified
interpreters available to interpret in vocational rehabilitation and other professional settings” (St. Catherine University, CATIE Center, n.d.). These domains and competencies can serve as a model to base the development of domains and competencies in other specialty areas of signed language interpreting. However, these domains and competencies are geared toward the
interpreting practitioner who provides communication access services to healthcare professionals who in turn provide services to Deaf patients, and not for those interpreters who provide
15 communication access services to Deaf professionals in the healthcare and medical fields.
Outside of generalist interpreter competencies, these are the only published domains and competencies for interpreters in a specialized setting.
Conclusions
While there is currently no research published regarding signed language interpreting in the STEM disciplines, this review includes recent research in other specialty settings as a way to stress the need for research in STEM interpreting. Several of the articles reviewed related to research in other specialty areas of interpreting in the field. Roberson et al. (2012) examined the numbers of interpreters who take assignments in the legal realm as well as those who desire specific training to be prepared for legal interpreting. Oldfield (2010) developed a competency model for interpreting in VRS based on the unique needs of that setting. Through their research, Walker and Shaw (2011) identified six areas of specialization in the field of signed language interpreting: legal, medical, mental health, K-12 education, post-secondary education, and working with Deaf-Blind consumers. Research in the area of STEM interpreting could reveal that interpreters need a unique and specific skill set and knowledge base to provide effective services in the STEM disciplines.
Consumer based research (Steinberg et al., 2006; Middleton et al., 2010) outlined the need for interpreters who specialize in medical interpreting both in the U.K. and the U.S. These studies also outlined the consequences for not having properly qualified and credentialed interpreters in medical settings. As for interpreting in STEM, Solomon (Ed.) (2012) reports that both Deaf students and professionals who choose STEM as a career path face barriers to
16 training to provide services in that realm. Knowing that it is difficult to obtain effective
communication services in the STEM fields may hamper Deaf people from pursuing an
education or career in those fields. Research on interpreting in the STEM fields should focus on the experiences of Deaf students and professionals in the STEM disciplines and their experiences with interpreters to tease out the necessary competencies interpreters must have to provide effective services in those disciplines.
Four of the six articles reviewed (Oldfield, 2010; Roberson et al., 2012; Solomon, Ed., 2012; Walker and Shaw, 2011), offer recommendations for interpreter educators to develop and implement curriculum to train interpreters who want to specialize in specific settings. This recommendation becomes paramount as more Deaf people are exercising their right to communication access in specialized settings and the need for qualified interpreters in those settings grows. While interpreting in the STEM fields is not officially considered an area of specialty within the field of signed language interpreting, identifying the competencies that interpreters should possess to provide effective services in those fields is the first step in moving towards an officially recognized specialization.
17
METHODOLOGY
The primary purpose of this study is to begin to define what Deaf professionals in the STEM fields consider competencies that interpreters must have in order to provide effective services in those disciplines. This study also documents if there are enough interpreters who are qualified to provide services in the STEM fields. This is exploratory research with the aim of defining and clarifying concepts related to interpreting in the STEM fields since these aspects regarding interpreting in STEM have not yet been studied.
Stebbins (2001) claims, “Social science exploration is a broad-ranging, purposive, systematic, prearranged undertaking designed to maximize the discovery of generalizations leading to description and understanding of an area of social or psychological life” (p. 3). The aims of this study are to describe and understand competencies that interpreters must possess in order to provide effective services to Deaf professionals and students in the STEM fields. The goals of this study align with what Neuman (2000) suggests are the goals for exploratory research: become familiar with the basic facts, settings, and concern; create a general mental picture of conditions; formulate and focus questions for future research, and; generate new ideas, conjectures, or hypotheses. While this study cannot be all encompassing, it can lay the ground work for future exploratory, explanatory, and applied research regarding what is required of interpreters who choose to provide services in the STEM fields.
Literature Review
Due to no research on signed language interpreter competencies in the STEM fields or the supply of qualified interpreters in those fields, the researcher analyzed the literature that has been published regarding other specialty areas in the field of interpreting. The literature review
18 outlined various settings and situations in the interpreting field that are, or should be, considered to require a skill set and knowledge base beyond that of a generalist practitioner. Special
attention was paid to how the relevant research addressed the need for training interpreters in the specialty areas identified. Further, understanding how these areas are identified will, hopefully, drive the future identification of STEM interpreting as a specialty in the interpreting field and how interpreters are trained and educated to develop the necessary competencies to provide effective services in those fields.
Design of the Investigation
In order to understand what Deaf professionals identify as competencies for signed language interpreters in STEM, a survey instrument was developed and administered through SurveyMonkey (see Appendix B). The survey consisted of 33 questions composed of three types of items: forced answer questions, “check all that apply” questions, and open-ended questions. These items appeared in four sections of the survey: (1) demographics, (2) use of interpreting services, (3) use of Video Relay Services (VRS) and Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) services, and (4) interpreter competencies in the STEM fields.
The first section on demographics elicited information regarding sector of employment: academia, private, and public. Public places of employment included municipal, state, or federal governments. This section also allowed participants to identify in which STEM field or fields they worked and what their exact disciplines were. STEM fields are the broad categories of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; whereas discipline refers to the specific area that Deaf professionals are engaged in within the broader categories. For example, the discipline of marine biology is under the category of science; or, the discipline of aerospace engineering is
19 under the category of engineering. Additionally, the participants were asked about their
geographic location in order to help establish if there are any geographic trends as far as having enough interpreters to provide services in STEM.
In the second section on use of interpreting services, participants were asked how often they used interpreting services during a typical work week and in what specific situations they used these services. Participants were also asked questions regarding coordination of interpreting services, if their preference of interpreters was honored, and if they used designated interpreters or a team of designated interpreters. Additionally, respondents were asked questions regarding the quality of interpreting services they receive and how interpreters are secured for assignments.
In the third section, participants were asked about their use of VRS and VRI services. If participants used VRS and/or VRI services they were asked to indicate their satisfaction with these services. The purpose of this section was to determine if Deaf professionals felt these off-site service options were viable for their communication needs.
The fourth and last section of the survey asked participants several questions related to interpreter competencies. Each question included a comment section to allow participants to expand on or explain why they felt certain competencies were essential or not. The questions in this section were devised based on the researcher’s own experience and observation, having provided interpreting services to both professionals and students in a variety of STEM fields and disciplines for more than 20 years. The survey instrument was piloted with a group of Deaf professionals and hearing signed language interpreters who identified as providing services in STEM. Questions on the survey were then edited and finalized based on suggestions from the pilot group.
20 The survey questionnaire was administered on-line through SurveyMonkey using a snowball or networking approach with a link being sent to various individuals who have access to email lists and list-servs of Deaf professionals in STEM including the Association of Medical Professionals with Hearing Loss, the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (various
departments), Gallaudet University (various departments), and various social media sites catering to Deaf professionals in STEM. Additionally, the link to the survey was sent to certain Deaf professionals in STEM who the researcher has worked with in the past. These individuals were asked to share the link with other Deaf professionals in STEM in their own personal and professional networks. The survey was anonymous with no identifying information being collected.
Sample
A total of 79 Deaf professionals in STEM responded to the survey; however, only 57 completed the survey in its entirety. For the purposes of this study only the data from the 57 completed surveys was analyzed and reported. Respondents were mainly from the U.S. with one person reporting currently working in Canada.
Data Analysis Procedures
The data from the survey was transferred to an Excel spreadsheet then coded and analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative methods. A qualitative method consisting of coding data from open ended questions was used to discover common trends and to further flesh out the specific competencies that were identified. Comments from participants on forced answer questions were also coded and sorted to identify trends not captured in the responses to the questions. These comments helped in understanding why respondents reported the way they did
21 in the forced answer questions. For example, those who reported that it was not important that interpreters have the ability to decipher the accents of non-native English speakers indicated that they did not work with non-native English speakers in their discipline. This type of qualitative analysis is based in grounded theory which seeks to identify relationships between categories coded and inductively develop a theory that explains the phenomena being studied (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). For the purposes of this study, the grounded theory approach was the best way to understand why participants ranked interpreter competencies as they did.
A quantitative method was used to note the frequency with which respondents ranked the importance of interpreter competencies. This method was also used to report the data collected from the forced answer questions on the survey. Using a qualitative method, correlations
between different variables within the study were also explored. Further Excel spreadsheets were created to compare specific responses side by side to determine any trends that the data revealed. For example, a comparison was made between those who reported working in academia and their responses to the question regarding if there are enough interpreters in the area to provide effective services. This type of comparison was essential for several aspects of this study and helped to create a generalized picture of what Deaf professionals in STEM experience with interpreting services. Data is reported using both tables and figures.
The strength of conducting exploratory research on interpreting competencies in STEM is to discover general ideas of what is required of STEM interpreters. The qualitative methodology used is limited by the fact that some of the concepts identified could not be well defined. For example, many respondents commented that it was important for interpreters to be professional and have a positive attitude, however, without interviewing those respondents who made the comments it is impossible to determine exactly how they define being professional and having a
22 positive attitude. A foundation will be laid for future research based on the general findings of these competencies for interpreters in the STEM fields and to later explore the means and ways that these competencies can be acquired by both interpreting practitioners and students of interpreting.
23
FINDINGS
I. Demographics
Fields and disciplines
Respondents were asked to identify in which specific STEM field they worked and were allowed to check more than one field (Figure 1). Twelve of the respondents did indicate they worked in two or more of the STEM fields. The field of science also includes those who work in the medical and healthcare fields and the field of technology includes those who work in
computer and information technology.
Figure 1. Number of respondents per STEM field.
27
23 12
11
Number of respondents per STEM field
Science Technology Engineering Mathematics
24
Sectors of employment
Respondents were asked to identify in which sector they were employed: Academia, Private Sector, or Public Sector (including government) and were allowed to choose more if they worked in more than one sector (Figure 2). Four respondents indicated they worked in more than one sector. The data collected for this question was also used to correlate with how respondents answered the question about having enough qualified interpreters in their area to provide communication access services in their discipline (see Figure 9).
Figure 2. Number of respondents per sector of employment
27
20 11
Number of respondents per sector of
employment
Academia Private Sector Public Sector
25
Geographical areas
Participants were asked in which region or state they worked to gain an understanding of where Deaf professionals in the STEM fields are located. The West Coast region (CA, OR, WA) and the Northeast region (MA, NJ, NY, VT) garnered the most responses, 15 participants and 14 participants respectively. The Midwest region (Canada, IA, MI, MN, OH) and the East Coast region (MD, Washington DC) are also well represented with 10 respondents and 9 respondents respectively answering the survey. All respondents indicated living in North America.
Table 1. Geographical location of respondents.
Geographical Location of Respondents Number of Respondents
West Coast (CA, OR, WA) 15
Northeast (MA,NJ, NY, VT) 14
Midwest (Canada, IA, MI, MN, OH) 10
East Coast (MD, Washington DC) 9
South (FL, LA, TX) 6
Southwest (AZ, CO, NM) 3
26
II. Interpreting Services
Frequency of use of interpreting services
The majority of respondents, 31.5% (18), reported that during a typical work week they used between one and five hours of interpreting services (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Number of interpreting service hours utilized per week.
Situations where interpreters are used
Deaf professionals in the STEM fields reported using interpreting services in a wide variety of settings depending on the sector in which they are employed and their specific discipline. The most common settings where interpreting services are utilized are large group meetings, classroom settings, one-on-one meetings, presentations, conferences, trainings, patient care, and employment specific events. Of the respondents in this study, 41 indicated the use of
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Less than 1 hour 1-5 hours 6-10 hours 11-15 hours 16-20 hours 21-25 hours 26-30 hours 31-35 hours 36-40 hours More than 40 hours
Number of interpreting service hours
27 interpreting services for group meetings, 16 reported the use of interpreting services in classroom settings for lectures and guest speakers, 15 indicated using interpreting services for one-on-one meetings at their place of employment, and 13 indicated using interpreting services for
employment specific presentations by colleagues and superiors. Furthermore, seven respondents indicated the use of interpreting services for employment specific conferences, five reported using interpreting services for employment specific training, and four indicated the use of interpreting services for employment related events. Additionally, four of the respondents indicated using interpreting services for direct patient care.
Designated interpreters
Designated interpreters are those interpreters who provide consistent and on-going services to specific clients on a regular or semi-regular basis (Hauser, Finch, & Hauser. Eds., 2008). For example, a Deaf doctor may have a designated interpreter (or team of interpreters) whom they use for all situations in which communication access services are needed. The use of designated interpreters ensures consistency across communication events and lessens the need for Deaf professionals to “train” every new interpreter who is employed to provide services. The data collected on the use of designated interpreters was analyzed by field and by employment sector to gain a better understanding of where designated interpreters are utilized as a strategy for the provision of consistent services. The data indicates that 50% or more of Deaf professionals in the STEM fields use designated interpreters and that 55% or more of Deaf professionals in all employment sectors use designated interpreters (Figure 4).
28 Figure 4. Percentage of respondents indicating the use of designated interpreters by field.
This data was also analyzed to show how many respondents stated they used designate interpreters by their identified employment sector. Fifty-five percent or more indicated the use of designated interpreters across all employment sectors (Figure 5).
54.50% 50% 56.50% 59.20% 44.00% 46.00% 48.00% 50.00% 52.00% 54.00% 56.00% 58.00% 60.00% Mathematics Engineering Technology Science
Percentage of respondents indicating the use of
designated interpreters by field
29 Figure 5. Percentage of respondents indicating the use of designated interpreters by employment sector.
The data collected was then combined to ascertain in which sector of employment per STEM field Deaf professionals are using designated interpreters (Figure 6). In the science fields 94% of those who work in academia reported the use of designated interpreters (n=16), with the remaining 6% not identifying in which sector they are employed.
Of those who reported being employed in the field of Technology, 33% reported using designated interpreters in the private and public sectors while 38% of those in academia reported using designated interpreters (n=13).
Using designated interpreters in the field of Engineering was similar to what was reported for their use in Technology across employment sectors (n=7). However, the number using
82% 55% 70% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Public Sector Private Sector Academia
Percentage of respondents indicating the
use of designated interpreters by
30 designated interpreters in academia was slightly higher while the numbers in the private and public sectors was slightly lower.
For those respondents reporting working in the field of Mathematics, 33% use designated interpreters in each of the employment sectors (n=6).
Figure 6. Percentage of respondents using designated interpreters by field per employment sector. 0% 33% 33% 33% 0% 29% 29% 43% 0% 31% 31% 38% 6% 0% 0% 94% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% No Sector Reported Public Sector Private Sector Academia
Percentage of respondents using designated
interpreters by field per employment sector
Science (n=16) Technology (n=13) Engineering (n=7) Mathematics (n=6)
31
Difficulties of securing interpreters
Participants were asked, “What is the most difficult aspect for you in getting interpreters at your place of employment?” The most difficult aspect reported was a lack of qualified and/or skilled interpreters with 17 respondents stating this as an obstacle. Last minute schedule changes and last minute requests were cited by ten respondents as the second most difficult aspect of securing interpreters while nine reported the difficulty being educating employers as to why interpreting services are needed and their obligation to provide interpreting services in
compliance with the ADA. Interpreter availability was mentioned seven times as being a reason for difficulty in securing interpreting services while only six respondents indicated that cost of interpreting services was a factor contributing to difficulty in obtaining services.
Supply of qualified interpreters
Of the 57 respondents to the survey 56% (32) indicated there were not enough qualified interpreters in their area to provide communication access services in their discipline while 44% (25) reported that there were enough qualified interpreters in their area (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Supply of qualified interpreters reported by respondents.
56% 44%
Supply of qualified interpreters
Not enough qualified interpreters Enough qualified interpreters
32 This data was divided by those reporting not enough interpreters by field (Figure 8) and those reporting not enough interpreters by employment sector (Figure 9) to hone in on where the lack of qualified interpreters has the most impact.
Figure 8. Percentage of respondents reporting not enough interpreters by field.
Figure 9. Percentage reporting not enough interpreters by employment sector
45% 75% 61% 52% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mathematics Engineering Technology Science
Percentage reporting not enough interpreters
by field
45% 55% 56% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Public Sector Private Sector AcademiaPercenatge reporting not enough interpreters
by employment sector
33 This data was further analyzed to compare the percentage of respondents in each STEM field reporting a lack of qualified interpreters by employment sector to better pinpoint where exactly the shortage of interpreters is most reported (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Percentage of respondents reporting not enough interpreters by field per employment sector. 0% 20% 20% 60% 0% 10% 45% 45% 7% 21% 43% 29% 14% 0% 7% 79% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% No Sector Reported Public Sector Private Sector Academia
Percentage of respondents reporting not
enough interpreters by field per employment
sector
Science (n=14) Technology (n=14) Engineering (n=9) Mathematics (n=5)
34 The data reported regarding the lack of interpreters was also analyzed by the regions the participants indicated they were from in order to determine if there was a geographical pattern to the reported shortage of interpreters (Figure 11).
Figure 11. Reported lack of interpreters by region.
33% 67%
West Coast
Enough Interpreters Not Enough Interpreters 43% 57%Northeast
Enough Interpreters Not Enough Interpreters 40% 60%Midwest
Enough Interpreters Not Enough Interpreters 67% 33%East Coast
Enough Interpreters Not Enough Interpreters35
III. Video Relay Services and Video Remote Interpreting Services
Use of VRS
Respondents were asked if they used VRS at their place of employment to make work related calls and if they were satisfied with the services they received via VRS interpreters. There were 36 respondents, or 61%, who indicated they did use VRS for work related calls (Figure 12) with 21 (58%) of those being satisfied with the services they received and 15 (42%) being dissatisfied (Figure 13).
Figure 12. Percentage reporting using VRS to make STEM related calls. 67% 33%
South
Enough Interpreters Not Enough Interpreters 100%Southwest
Enough Interpreters Not Enough Interpreters 37% 63% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Do not use VRS Use VRSPercentage reporting using VRS to make
STEM related calls
36 Figure 13. Percentage reporting satisfaction with using VRS for STEM related calls.
Many of the respondents commented that they frequently used email or instant messaging
to conduct work related business and used VRS only if they needed to make immediate contact with a colleague.
Use of Video Remote Interpreting Services
Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) is a service in which video technology is used to live stream an interpreter, via computer or other technology device, to a location where a Deaf and hearing person need to communicate. Unlike VRS, VRI is not mandated or reimbursed through the federal government in the U.S. VRI is simply an option to provide interpreting services remotely in which the interpreter does not have to be in the same location as the consumers of services. Seven of the 57 respondents in this study reported using VRI at their place of
employment for interpreting services. Of those seven, four were satisfied with the services they received and three reported being unsatisfied with the services they received through VRI. Those
58% (21) 42% (15)
Satisfaction with VRS (36 reporting)
Satisfied with VRS Not satisfied with VRS
37 who reported being unsatisfied commented that their lack of satisfaction had to do with
technology issues (slow internet speed, choppy video) rather than issues with the quality of interpreting services.
IV. Interpreter Competencies
Respondents to the survey were asked to rate the importance of interpreters’ possessing certain competencies when providing services in the STEM fields. In addition to ranking the importance of interpreters’ possessing these competencies, respondents were given the
opportunity to provide comments specific to different competencies. Through these comments other desirable traits that interpreters should posses came to light, mainly professionalism and a positive attitude. The competencies asked about are as follows:
1. What credentials do you prefer interpreters in your discipline to have?
2. How important is it to you that interpreters in your discipline are flexible interpreting in a range from signed English to ASL?
3. How knowledgeable do you prefer interpreters to be in your discipline?
4. How important is it to you that interpreters have prior experience interpreting in your specific discipline?
5. What type of educational background do you prefer interpreters to have in your specific discipline?
6. How important is it to you that interpreters have training (e.g., workshops, classes, seminars) for interpreting in your specific discipline?
38 7. How important is it to you that interpreters understand the specific vocabulary and jargon
unique to your discipline?
8. How important is it to you that interpreters in your discipline are able to decipher foreign language accents?
9. When your colleagues present a paper or research or lead a meeting at your place of employment or a conference, how important is it to you that interpreters do preparation work beforehand?
10.When you present a paper or research or lead a meeting at your place of employment or a conference, how important is it to you that interpreters do preparation work beforehand? 11.When interpreters in your discipline encounter concepts they do not understand while
interpreting, how do you expect them to address the issue?
12.How important is it to you that interpreters in your discipline be flexible with differing work environments (e.g., field work, lab meetings, research cruises)?
13.What are other competencies or skills that you feel interpreters in your discipline must possess that have not been mentioned in this survey?
Participant responses to these questions regarding competencies were analyzed and tabulated and are presented below in table, figure, and narrative format.
Credentials
An interpreter’s certification is often used as a measure of their qualification to provide services for any given assignment. In the U.S. and Canada, there are several different
certifications that interpreters may or may not possess. As well, there are different certifying bodies that evaluate interpreters using their own unique tests and testing materials. These
39 differing certifications may be confusing for the general public when it comes to hiring an interpreter to provide services.
The preferences for specific interpreter credentials are quite varied amongst Deaf professionals in STEM (Table 2). Respondents were asked, “What credentials do you prefer interpreters in your discipline to have?” They were given the choice of “RID Certification,” “NAD Certification,” “BEI Certification,” “EIPA Credentials,” “Other (please specify)” and “Certification does not matter.” Respondents were instructed to choose all that apply.
Table 2. Preferred interpreter credentials.
Credential Number of Responses
Only checked RID Certification 15
RID and NAD Certification 12
Certification does not matter 10
RID, NAD and BEI Certification 7
RID and BEI Certification 4
RID and NAD Certification and EIPA 2
RID Certification and EIPA 2
RID, NAD, BEI Certification and EIPA 1
RID Certification and Certification does not matter 1
NAD Certification and Certification does not matter 1
Only checked BEI Certification 1
Only checked EIPA 1
40
The Deaf professionals in STEM who responded to this survey indicated that they are
conscious of the fact that regardless of the interpreter’s certification, such credentials are only a measure of an interpreter’s minimum skill level. Many respondents commented that they placed more value on the interpreter’s ability and aptitude than on what certification they possessed. In regard to interpreter aptitude one respondent stated, “I would rather hire based on experience and motivation/commitment, as well as understanding of the nature of working for a Deaf medical professional, than a mere certification.” Along the same line, another respondent made this comment, “Credentials are important, but most important are knowledge of content in order to avoid incorrect conceptual signs in STEM.” Yet another respondent reiterated this theme, “They need to be able to handle the content. No certification predicts that.” Related to interpreter attitude, one respondent made this comment, “Credentials are important, but experience and attitude usually count as much.” Finally, another respondent emphasized, “Attitude and skill are far more important than certification.”
Flexibility in signing
Respondents were asked, “How important is it to you that interpreters in your discipline are flexible interpreting in a range from signed English to ASL?” Several of the respondents who added a comment to this question indicated a preference for interpreters to use English based signing, or transliteration, while providing services specifically for the person’s job task. However, these same participants preferred the use of ASL, or interpreting, in more casual settings such as meetings, social times, or the lunch hour with colleagues. Forty-nine percent of the respondents indicated that it was very important for interpreters in their discipline to be able to interpret in a range of signing modalities that include more English based signing to a more formal ASL structure while another 30% indicated that it was somewhat important. The
41 remaining 21% indicated that it was either not very important or not important at all to them that interpreters be able to use a range of signed English to ASL when providing services.
Figure 14. Reported importance of interpreters’ flexibility in using a range of signing systems.
Knowledge of the discipline
An overwhelming majority of respondents reported that it was either very important or somewhat important for interpreters to be knowledgeable in the discipline in which they are interpreting; forty-nine percent and 44% respectively (Figure 15). Many of the respondents also commented on the importance of the interpreter having knowledge in their specific field. One respondent stated, “Nothing is more important than content knowledge.” Another respondent commented on the expectation that interpreters have knowledge of the discipline, “The ideal, of course, is to be very knowledgeable! Reality, on the other hand...” Finally, one respondent
49% 29% 11% 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Very important Somewhat important Not very important Not important at all
